Coppell Cross L5-CS 991118CASE:
CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
COPPELL CROSSING ADDITION
LOT 5, BLOCK 1, FINAL PLAT and SITE PLAN
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
November 18, 1999
December 14, 1999
Along the west side of MacArthur Boulevard; approximately 580'
north of the D.A.R.T. right-of-way.
Approximately 1.1 acres of property, containing one 9,940 sq. ft.
building.
CURRENT ZONING:
C (Commercial)
REQUEST:
Final Plat and Site Plan approval.
APPLICANT:
Engineer:
Dunnaway and Associates
Chris Lam (for Mitch Vexler)
2351 West N. W. Highway, Suite 3280
Dallas, TX. 75220
(214) 654-0123
Fax: (214) 654-0122
Architect:
David Cannon
6709 Creekside
Plano, TX. 75023
(972) 618-8891
Fax: (972) 618-2409
HISTORY:
There has been considerable development history on the property
surrounding this request including site plan approvals as well as
plating activity.
TRANSPORTATION:
MacArthur Blvd. is a P6D, shown as a six-lane divided
thoroughfare on our Thoroughfare Plan. It is currently an
improved four-lane divided roadway contained within a l l0-foot
r.o.w.
Item # 8
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North- mini-warehousing; PD-151C
South-retail; "C', Commercial
East -franchise restaurant; "C", Commercial
West -TU electric transmission line; "A", Agricultural
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
retail uses.
DISCUSSION:
As with the lot 4 request which immediately preceded this application,
this site plan also needs a great deal of alteration before it complies with
our development standards. The same comment relative to the architect's
past experience here could be made, but to eliminate that duplicity, we
will focus on areas in which this proposal does not conform to ordinance
requirements. This request also does not recognize our minimum
landscape requirements. Specifically, setback requirements, landscaping
buffers, and calculations relative to overall coverage, parking, and
landscape planting need major alteration. For example, based upon the
submittal, this proposal could result in two front yards. Required building
setbacks could result in 60 foot setbacks with parking shown. The Building
Official would make the final decision regarding front yards. In addition,
building square footage was approved on the concept plan and preliminary
plat at 6,240 square feetmthey now show a 9,900 square foot building.
When driveway pavement is shared with an adjoining property owner, a
landscape area of at least 10 feet in width must be provided on either side
of the drive. This will affect the 16 head-in parking spaces along the
southern property line. Addressing these head-in parking spaces, a single
row of parking shall contain no more than 15 spaces. Also, no less than 5
spaces shall be constructed, and all parking rows must have trees at their
ends. As stated above, the size of this building has increased from the
Council approved 6,240 square feet to 9,940 feet, and reducing its size will
assist in meeting the violated development standards mentioned. To repeat
our signage concern, you recall that we had a misunderstanding regarding
signage here. Although the applicant has provided a "Shopping Center
Sign Criteria" outline, staff repeats its comment that all signs meet our
minimum sign standards regardless of this document. It is difficult for staff
to understand how a building can "grow" by almost 4000 feet when an
approved plan clearly stated gross square footage of the proposed building.
Again, all these concerns were discussed at the Development Review
Committee meeting, and the applicant has elected to ignore the issues. In
addition, this case also has a box culvert relocation that must be addressed.
Item # 8
In the final analysis, major alteration of this request must be addressed
before it complies with basic City requirements. That being the case, the
plat is also unacceptable until a site plan, meeting the provisions of our
Codes and Ordinances and reflected by the plat is submitted.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Staff recommends denial of the PLAT based upon the comments stated
above.
As in the previous case proposed by this developer, either the building is
too large or the site is too small. Because the site can not be enlarged, the
size of the building must be reduced to meet our development standards.
We recommend denial of the SITE PLAN because it does not meet
minimtun City development requirements, many of which have been
outlined above.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommend approval of the request
2) Recommend denial of the request
3) Modify the request
4) Take under advisement for additional information
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Overall Site Plan
2) Lot 5 Site Plan
3) Landscape Plan
4) Irrigation Plan
5) Floor Plan
6) Elevations
7) Shopping Center Sign Criteria
8) Departmental Comments
Item # 8
1, Co~v
Sq~ copy sh~ ~ ~te~ m
'~ T~t bu &[cgo or
sh~ ~ude ~h~ I~tt~ bac~
~y s~te ~o~ or s~t) may
$~ ty~e ~S ~iH not ~
R~ - Eau Compile
or
~ac~rO~d pla:e ~r to ~ b~ck
Tt~ ~p ~ "' Co~r to ~c~ :eliot
$. ~ter .~tvle
Tempi tomy ~oo~ S:~c, to ~ approv~ by ~or~.
,~. L~'~ c~nd
24' t~ i~tt~s ~ 1~.
C. No ~mo~te ~ ~ ~ ~e m~'~ ~s may bc ~sca
6.
45G0 W~IC Neon. ~e n~n sbo~ ~ bca no~c~ble s~ ot ~b!.
Lctte~ ~ ~s or 4' ~ ~th.
~ S~nd~ v. mng to be c~I~cd ~t~ ~way. GTO c~e to i)e/~ted ~h ~¢k Co~e~! ~ ~s ~p sti~
c~.
req'~ :t~ sh~t net ~
29
seek Lancil~d ~ ipprm~ I
~ (~ ~ I~".~mlnarjon
.--.I
l~orm 05~2 RtL' O~/g7 :wJttals: Landl,',,'d .._ Tenant ..~
3O
1o.
¢)
1!.
:2.
13.
14.
16.
{)
2~
3~
4.'
17.
T~furm~s
~:~ s
S~ A~hed Sketch. The s~ ~ ~e a ~ ~l~d ~ WG~.
P.O. ~ ~g~3
75~2~305~
Style - ~
S~:e e · C~ hc~yaDy ~ ~ ~ t~ mdcw~
3:
5't~te · and company n~me ~ ~ appU~d :o s~e d~ ~ ~:
Color ~d T~. ~c ~l ~ ~t~
~ca~on · Cente~d b~z~ aa s~ ~ ~ t~' ~om mp ~ do~.
~ez, ~opedy ~p~ ~y ~ ~us~ by ~e ~ ~ ~t~ce of T~t'a ~.
D) The Te~t ~ ~ly ~le ~or comp~ce ~ ~csc c~[~ Do ~oc ~e ~ pa~enc to sii~ co~y
Ten~['s s~ ~y s~ ~teld ~ ~ mei~s ~m mt~ ~or to fabh~:~ of ~.
20, ~e foflo~ ~ nog ~t~
C:ot~ ~ ~ ~ f~nt of busme~
~ ~ le.~ ~t~ ~ on ~y ~ace ~pt u h~
~e l~J, st~ ~ tec~ ~ ~ufactuRrt or ~nstagcrs s~ nol ~ rifle ~xcep/for tec~ ~ta qtf
21. Req~ ~:
I. Tee~t s~ ~ t~ to ~deatEy its ~e~ ~ ~ng oae (I } sl~ ~cb ~ b~ a~ta~ ~dy tu the
2. Te~t sb~ net ~ aU~ tO 0pe~ f~ ~e~ wi~out ~pto~d ~q~d ~[ns m p~ce. ~e
t~s rea~n s~H oO1 ~e the Te~t ~ ~ ~c~ of ~ts ~:nr~ o~tr the L~.
22. ~ ~s at ~bj~t ~o ~ha~ ~s~Uon
S[~ ~A~ ~ ~S ~ ~ ~, ~R TO ~ ~A~ OF
l~orm ~..c32 Rev 07/g7 :nl,'la~c Laadiord __ Tegan[ ..__